Monday, September 5, 2011

Notes: Wednesday, August 24-Monday, September 5, 2011 (part 1 of 2)

1. On the Department of Defence's Understanding Transitioning Gender in the Workplace document

One of The Weekend Australian's recent columns (warning: The column's name is blasphemous, and there is a picture of a bra at the top of its web-page) featured an amusing excerpt from a recent publication by Australia's Department of Defence. Here are some other points of interest from that document:
  • In the course of their duties, commanders and managers may not encounter any Defence people who wish to transition gender. It is important however that commanders and managers are aware of their obligations and responsibilities with regard to the support and management of people who are transitioning gender.
    [p. 3]
  • It is also important to use the correct pronouns such as ‘she’ or ‘her’ in the case of a male transitioning to a female or ‘he’ or ‘him’ in the case of a female transitioning to a male. ... The continued deliberate use of pronouns and names relating to the previous gender identity will be construed as sexual harassment.
    [p. 7]
  • Should the situation arise where open communal same sex showers are the only showers available (i.e. field exercises/deployments), the transitioning person and their commander or manager should discuss and agree upon an appropriate arrangement to ensure the needs of all people are met. This situation would only apply prior to the transitioning person undergoing gender realignment surgery.
    [p. 7]
  • Note that the use of the term ‘sex change’ may be perceived as derogatory.
    [p. 12]
  • The precise definition for transgender remains in constant flux.
    [p. 13]
  • Approximately one in 11,000 males and one in 30,000 females have the condition. Note that the prevalence of the condition is often understated as most statistics only look at those people who have completed surgery.
    [p. 16]
Note those figures on the rate of incidence of Gender Identity Disorder ("the condition" to which that last quotation refers): So in a randomly-selected sample of 60000 people, with a male:female ratio of presumably roughly 50:50, there will be roughly three "transgender women" and roughly one "transgender man" (see p. 13 for the terminology). Even if you want to double that in order to take into account the fact that the prevalence is supposedly understated, that's still only six men who feel that they're women and two women who feel that they're men. Now according to the Defence Annual Report 2009-10,
At 30 June 2010, Defence had 73,490 permanent employees (headcount) comprising 57,799 permanent ADF members and 15,691 APS staff.
and the Defence Materiel Organisation will employ, in 2011-2012, "over 7,000 people" (source), so that one would expect that the entire Defence workforce will contain, at most, a mere ten "transgender people". Why, then, would the Department even bother putting together a whole booklet on Defence employees' 'gender affirmation' (destroying the gender in order to affirm it?) and tell its commanders and managers that it "is important" that they "are aware of their obligations and responsibilities with regard to the support and management of people who are transitioning gender"? Could it be that there is an ideological motive involved here? I see that one of the websites listed under the heading "Additional Resources" on p. 17 is that of "Pride in Diversity"; I've blogged on "Pride in Diversity" in item 6 of this edition of Notes, and you'll see at its website that it "was established as a collaboration between" Stonewall, "a London-based LGBT advocacy group", and two other organisations.

Labels: A.D.F., Defence Department, G.L.B.T., Pride in Diversity

2. On The Australian's attitude towards so-called gay marriage

That link leads to what is, to date, the fullest statement of The Australian's official editorial attitude towards so-called gay marriage. Its author writes that
The Australian leans towards libertarianism on social issues, believing the state should tread as lightly as possible around personal issues. It is not our role to pronounce one way or another on same-sex marriage ...
Yet in that editorial and this earlier one The Australian puts inverted commas around the word "marriage" when speaking of polygamous ones without ever, as far as I can recall, doing so for same-sex unions.

And that editorial, after noting some of the problems involved with gay 'marriage', says that "[n]one of [those] difficulties are insurmountable" (which indicates that The Australian has no in-principle opposition to the notion). But how does The Australian propose to 'surmount' a same-sex marriage's constitutional incapacity for consummation? And how does it propose to 'surmount' the deprivation of a mother for those children procured by Gay 'husbands' and their respective 'wives' and of a father for children procured by Lesbian 'husbands' and their respective 'wives'?

Labels: Australian, families, G.L.B.T., marriage, parenthood

3. "approximately 24 percent of [American] children are born to co-habiting couples"

Labels: families, parenthood, U.S.A.

4. "the Holy Father does not allow Girl Altar Boys within his own Diocese of Rome"

Labels: Diocese of Rome, liturgy

5. "Why mothers matter"

(That came to my attention via the LMF News e-mail of August 2011 from The Archdiocese of Sydney's Life, Marriage & Family Centre.)

Labels: families, parenthood

6. "The statistics on women in Victoria having terminations from 24 weeks into pregnancy are incomplete, badly presented and out of date - but they still allow us to estimate the number at slightly fewer than 138 women a year"

Labels: abortion

7. Mr. Magister on, among other things, then-Fr. Ratzinger's involvement with the Neo-catechumenal Way in its early days

Labels: Benedict XVI. Ratzinger, Neo-catechumenal Way

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Lawrence Justinian, Bishop, Confessor, A.D. 2011

No comments: